Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food
AbstractLittle is known about the role and mechanisms through which the press media reporting influences attitudes and risk perceptions. Whilst some approaches stress the prevalent idea that risks are partly the creation or amplification of the media, other scholars find that the media plays a rather neutral role as a conveyor only, which calls for further empirical exploration, especially in areas where consumers have limited knowledge. This paper examines both quantitative and qualitative empirical evidence to scrutinize whether the press media coverage and reporting had some effect on the change in attitudes towards and risk perceptions of new genetically modified (GM) foods between 1999 and 2004 in Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). Results suggest that differences in media reporting along with attitudes towards journalism correlate with attitudes and risk perception to GM food whilst trust does not appear to exert any significant effect. This result reinforces the hypothesis of a media bias in newly created technology risks.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics).
Volume (Year): 37 (2008)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175
Media content analysis Genetically modified food Risk perceptions Trust and media bias;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2002.
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1981, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005.
"The Market for News,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
- Verbeke, Wim & Ward, Ronald W., 2001. "A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 359-374, September.
- S.S. Vickner, 2004. "Media Coverage of Biotech Foods and Influence on Consumer Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1238-1246.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.